Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of 2 modern swept-source optical biometers—IOLMaster 700 and Anterion
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of 2 modern swept-source optical biometers—IOLMaster 700 and Anterion
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of 2 modern swept-source optical biometers—IOLMaster 700 and Anterion
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of 2 modern swept-source optical biometers—IOLMaster 700 and Anterion
2023
Overview
Abstract PurposeTo compare biometric measures from 2 modern swept-source OCT biometers (IOLMaster700 (Z, Carl-Zeiss-Meditec) and Anterion (H, Heidelberg Engineering)) and evaluate the effect of measurement differences on the resulting lens power (IOLP).MethodsBiometric measurements were made on a large study population with both instruments. We compared axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT) and corneal front and back surface curvature measurements. Corneal curvature was converted to power vectors and total power derived using the Gullstrand formula. A paraxial lens power calculation formula and a prediction for the IOL axial position according to the Castrop formula were used to estimate differences in IOLP targeting for emmetropia.ResultsThere were no systematic differences between measurements of AL (− 0.0146 ± 0.0286 mm) and LT (0.0383 ± 0.0595 mm), whereas CCT yielded lower (7.8 ± 6.6 µm) and ACD higher (0.1200 ± 0.0531 mm) values with H. With H, CCT was lower for thicker corneas. The mean corneal front surface radius did not differ (− 0.4 ± 41.6 µm), but the corneal back surface yielded a steeper radius (− 397.0 ± 74.6 µm) with H, giving lower mean total power (− 0.3469 ± 0.2689 dpt). The astigmatic vector components in 0°/90° and 45°/135° were the same between both instruments for the front/back surface or total power.ConclusionThe biometric measures used in standard formulae (AL, corneal front surface curvature/power) are consistent between instruments. However, modern formulae involving ACD, CCT or corneal back surface curvature may yield differences in IOLP, and therefore, formula constant optimisation customised to the biometer type is required.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
